Removing instruments fromk backing tracks - Crazy technical idea floating...

" By participating in the patent and copyright systems, the creative person is given the protection of the state and legal system for a sufficient time to cash in on the fruits of their labors, after which the public owns their stuff. " - Dewster

Yes - the "sufficient time to cash in on the fruits of their labors" is probably key here.. For a work of high value, this can be a huge income over the period of a reasonable length copyright or patent..

.. sufficient for the recipient to put a huge bundle aside to pass on in their will.

A "one off" creative output probably cannot be equated to a business which is a continual effort by its creators and/or their descendents.

Fred.

Fred wrote: I remember reading some words in the manual about RCA owning the sound ?! and that performers had restrictions on how the theremin could be used... (please correct me if im wrong - but it seems like the copyright rot goes back a long way...)

You're right Fred. Inside the cabinet door of every RCA theremin was a label with a declaration of patent ownership stating that the instrument was for private use only, and that any public performance involving the theremin had to be authorized by RCA.

There has been some speculation about why RCA did this. It has been suggested that the company knew that its promotional brochures claiming that the instrument was easy to play were misleading, and they added the cautionary label forbidding people from playing the theremin in public because they knew listeners would be disappointed by what they heard and would never waste their money on something that was obviously little more than an expensive squawk box.

I don't believe this. I think they put the label on the instrument because RCA itself was guilty of patent infringement and knew it.

In fact, in 1931 RCA was sued by the inventor of the radio tube, Lee De Forest, and damages were awarded to the De Forest Radio Company. This lawsuit didn't just pop up out of nowhere. It had been simmering for several years. By 1931, however, RCA had already lost a good deal of money on the theremin venture and had ceased manufacture.

Copyright and patent laws were very different in the 1920's and 30's from what they are today, but I believe RCA was covering its corporate ass by putting the cautionary label on its instruments. I think they knew they would eventually be going to court and were hoping that the judge would take into consideration the fact that the instrument was for "personal use only" and not intended for commercial exploitation by consumers.

"Why, Your Honor, we have even pointed this out right on the door of every instrument we sold!"

There are a couple of things that it might be worth pointing out in the matter of song copyright.

Most songs don't make vast pots of cash that songwriters can salt away for the use of their beneficiaries. In fact, most songs make absolutely nothing at all. Yes, there are blockbuster, worldwide hits that make a lot of money very fast but they are extremely rare when you consider the number of songs that are released daily.

Most songs, if they manage to be recorded and distributed at all, generate very little income and it dribbles in over several decades. 

There is a central registry for songs and songwriters. Each country has an association that administrates for its members. Since laws governing copyright are different in each country, a single worldwide organization would be impossible to juggle. In America there is also the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) that will provide mechanical licenses for anyone wishing to record someone else's work. 

We are living in a time of MASSIVE theft of intellectual property. There are countries like China where violation of international agreements is common, and never prosecuted. There have been cases where films that have not even had their premiere have been pirated and marketed internationally!

The situation is similar to drug smuggling. It's easy to blame the smugglers for the drug problem but the REAL problem is us. 

"We are living in a time of MASSIVE theft of intellectual property."  - coalport

True, but it's only kind of theft if you were expecting to make a profit from it.  Otherwise it's just copying.

Say a generalized copying machine exists and most people own one.  I decide to go into the automobile business and spend a long time designing a new car.  I gear up to make a bunch of them but copies of my prototype start showing up everywhere and I lose my shirt.  Do I:

1. realize I have an unsustainable business model, take it as a lesson learned and move on, or

2. spend tons of money to get new kinds of laws on the books that make the act of copying (indeed even the discussion of how to copy) my specific product illegal.

The entertainment industry can put whatever kinds of copy protection they want in their products, but making it illegal for me to circumvent it for personal use strikes me as an infringement of my basic rights.  They can play games with the definition of "ownership" but we all have a sense of what that really means.

Copying of old stuff that isn't yet in the public domain (due to the 95 or 120 year or whatever the limit is these days) but is otherwise past the point of making any profit can help keep important / interesting content (and authors) alive long after the capitalists have abandoned it.  If I were king of the world I'd make it a rule that anything not being actively published by the owners for profit would fairly quickly become public domain.

dewster: The entertainment industry can put whatever kinds of copy protection they want in their products, but making it illegal for me to circumvent it for personal use strikes me as an infringement of my basic rights.  

How do you define "personal use"?

Does your definition include publishing?

I would argue that anyone who posts material to YouTube, or to any other public access audio or video site, is by definition publishing that material. 

How do you define "personal use"?

Backing up / storing on alternate media: software, music, movies, sheet music, etc.

Does your definition include publishing?

No, but my definition of publishing may be different than yours.

At the end of the day, I should be able to use it without the interference / intervention of the publisher, and I should be free to resell it if I want to.

dewster: At the end of the day, I should be able to use it without the interference / intervention of the publisher, and I should be free to resell it if I want to.

If you buy a commercial CD or DVD and copy it for your own personal use onto some other format, should you be able to sell that copy if you want to, or should legal resale be restricted only to the original article of purchase?

As for the definition of "publishing" it is simply the act of issuing something to the general public. Publishing does not necessarily involve an exchange of money.

As I see it, this whole matter cannot be cleared up or resolved in any way - There will be parties, whichever way things go, who will feel (justifiably) that they have been wronged.

I do not think any real comparison can be made between patents and most copyright - [in theory only! ->] With a patentable idea, one has the choice of patenting, which forces disclosure of the idea, or not patenting and using the idea for ones own benefit whilst keeping it a "trade secret".. Patenting provides [in theory only!] a means whereby an inventor can share the idea, with the concequential benefit to humanity, in exchange for protection of their right to exclusively "own" their idea for a limited time.

The difference with copyright is that (certainly for music) the "product" cannot be exploited unless it is "shared" - You cannot make any money from, or gain any advantage by keeping a song a "trade secret" - As soon as your song is heard by someone "skilled in the art" it would be available for anyone to use and do what they pleased with, if it were not for copyright.

So, unlike with patents, there is no mechanism to regulate the "market price" of a copyrightable work - With patents, if the protection and value of having a patent was not deemed by the inventor to be worth having, then they have [in theory only! ] the option of keeping their idea secret and exploiting it - But a creator of a musical work, or an author, or artist or whatever, whos "product" cannot be used secretly, does not have this choice.

So whatever mechanisms are applied to give artists protection, these mechanisms cannot be "governed" by "market forces" in the same way patents can.

"At the end of the day, I should be able to use it without the interference / intervention of the publisher, and I should be free to resell it if I want to." - Dewster

Is one side of the argument - but is it really a "fair" proposal ?  ... Who defines what is "fair" or what "justice" is ?  Nobody!  - because these are just words touted to back up our delusional "rights"... I could say that I think "I should be able to use it without the interference / intervention of the publisher" but would disagree with the right to sell it without restriction (at least for a reasonable time after the creation of the original, so as to give the creator an "advantage") ..

But who are any of us to decide? Lets be honest - if there were no restrictions, the vast majority of people wouldnt pay a penny to the artist - I have seen the nature of most people clearly with regard to this, where they are happy to take my designs and time and effort, but when I ask them to make a small donation to the charity I support (streetkids rescue) they suddenly dissapear (or come back with a different email identity, LOL ;-)

It is no surprise to me that big business has "taken up the cause" of the artist, and that this has been twisted and corrupted into what we see today, where both the artists and the consumers are exploited.

But as to "rights" - What "right" do I have to use something I have heard, which was created by someone else ? - Or, for that matter, what "right" did they have to expose me to their creation (LOL) ? Could I argue "rightly" that because they exposed me to their tune, and it embedded in my brain, that I have the right to use it as I choose?

None of the above matters - all that counts is whatever the lawyers manage to wangle. "Rights" "wrongs" "justice" "fairness" None of these count for anything - "its not fair" is something only the young or lucky deluded say.

Fred.

"If you buy a commercial CD or DVD and copy it for your own personal use onto some other format, should you be able to sell that copy if you want to, or should legal resale be restricted only to the original article of purchase?"  - coalport

The latter.  Most of my CD & DVD collection is used.  I feel a bit bad that the artists don't receive royalties on the resale, but I'm at a loss to come up with a simple system that provides for this but doesn't overly restrict / penalize the honest buyer / reseller.  I imagine the used market is quite a bit smaller than the new, and that companies and artists make the lion's share of their profits on the initial release. 

And then there is the issue of changing media, which necessitates the replacement of entire collections.  I don't know how many times I've paid the artists and studios again and again for the right to play the same content when all I want is an exchange to the new media - an exchange that should cost me quite a bit less than retail.  I'm rather bitter about this and it makes me feel like the rules and laws are in place more for monetary reasons (i.e. fleecing me) than fairness.

"I could say that I think "I should be able to use it without the interference / intervention of the publisher" but would disagree with the right to sell it without restriction (at least for a reasonable time after the creation of the original, so as to give the creator an "advantage") .."  - FredM

Fred, I otherwise agree with you 100%, and perhaps you weren't talking about the following scenario:  If I buy a CD or DVD that was just released and discover that it's a dog (a band that I like cashes in on previous success and produces a dud, a director that I like cashes in on previous success and produces a dud, an actor that I like...) I should be free to resell it and recoup at least some of my loss.  If I wait too long the market value will decrease, and I don't see any good reason why I should shoulder that burden.  These are items that one usually can't just bring back to the store for a refund, which is an extra kick in the pants to the honest consumer.